RAJIV MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 8/6/2019 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 in Misc. Case No. 15/2018-19 whereby the petitioner's representation dtd. 28/1/2019 filed pursuant to the order dtd. 18/1/2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3838/2018 claiming compensation for acquisition of his land appertaining to Khata No. 142, Plot No. 1344, Mouza-Barki Sariya, Thana No. 44, District- Giridih, measuring an area of 18 Decimals which was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Dedicated Freight Corridor Project of Railways, has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to make payment of appropriate compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of the said land as he has lawful title over the same.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the order dtd. 18/1/2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3838/2018, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent No.3 on 28/1/2019 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) along with all the relevant documents with respect to his title over the said land. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3 on two dates i.e. 6/2/2019 and 21/2/2019. On both the dates, the petitioner reiterated before the respondent No.3 that the relevant documents with respect to his lawful title over the said land were already submitted along with the aforesaid representation. Despite that, the respondent No.3 issued letter No. 449 dtd. 7/6/2019 to the respondent No.5 calling for a report in this regard during pendency of Cont. Case (Civil) No. 358/2019 filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 without verifying the relevant records or issuing any notice to the petitioner to make the documents available to him, submitted his report to the respondent No.3 vide letter No. 296 dtd. 8/6/2019 stating that the petitioner did not submit the required documents with respect to his claim of lawful title over the land in question. Finally, the respondent No.3 vide the impugned order dtd. 8/6/2019, rejected the petitioner's representation seeking compensation for utilising his land for construction of Dedicated Freight Corridor of Railways primarily on the ground that he did not submit the required documents suggesting his lawful title over the land in question.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 stating inter alia that the respondent No.3 called for a report from the respondent No.5, who vide letter No. 296 dtd. 8/6/2019, submitted a report stating that the petitioner did not file the required documents in support of his claim of title and ownership over the land in question and also stated that the Power Grid as well as Power Grid Control Room of Railways are standing thereon for last 30 years. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 vide the impugned order dtd. 8/6/2019, rejected the petitioner's claim for compensation.